Make Better Decisions
Good decision-making doesn’t require genius, it requires curiosity, humility and openness to challenge
What
It’s been said that assumption makes an ass out of u(you) and me (ass-u-me), and it’s true. When decision-makers don’t have the facts, when hubris or ego or even just overwhelm means they’re dealing in assumptions rather than reality, accidents happen.
Good decision-making isn’t about having a genius leader; it’s about having well-trained, experienced and competent people, acting with the appropriate (conscious, considered) risk appetite, working with accurate (or at least reasonable) information.
Why
How we lead determines our ‘situational awareness’ - our level of access to the facts surrounding the options in any decision.
Most of the assumptions that lie behind most of the decisions we make are implicit or unconscious. Key to making better decisions is to make implicit assumptions conscious: only when they are conscious can they properly be taken into account and something be done about them.
Examples include: “I didn’t realise that was my responsibility”, or “I thought they were checking that”, or “I’d have said something if I was asked”, or “I just assumed she was a PA” (when really she was the head of the group…)
How
Ensuring decision-makers are in touch with reality - that is, making decisions based on facts or at least good assumptions - requires them to question themselves, and to allow space for the thoughts and ideas of others. So, our process of improving decision-making involves: building self-awareness in decision-makers in order to develop humility (knowing I don’t have all the answers and cannot have all the information); building curiosity and openness to diverse perspectives; and nurturing environments in which it’s safe for everyone to speak up.
Enabling speaking up is about developing psychological safety in the organisation or team on the one hand (it’s safe to make mistakes, so I can take a risk of sharing, and own up if I’m wrong), and putting in place ways of working which ensure people do actually speak up, like turn-taking, no interruptions, and the leader speaks last, on the other.
By making this manifest, we draw attention to the practice of good decision-making, creating and holding the space to allow participants to have a lived experience of this way of working and the benefits that flow from it.
Recent engagement
Addressing decision-making dysfunction at a US-based, global consumer products manufacturer
This $100 million+ family-run company going through generational leadership change found its strategic decision-making processes paralysed by competing visions and voices, and confusion of roles.
This client’s top leadership consisted largely of family members, plus some outsiders brought in to ‘professionalise’ and formalise leadership and management. This group lacked clear roles and responsibilities and wasn’t functioning effectively as a team, so the executive senior leadership team also was unable to consolidate and cohere around a united vision: decisions would get made but never implemented; it was unclear who was responsible for what; decision-making authority was opaque or contradictory; and getting things done felt next to impossible. Disillusionment was high, a stampede for the door at the most senior levels loomed.
We helped the top team understand the dynamics of their relationships with each other and how this dysfunction was cascading through the company - to recognise that unless they spoke with one voice, followers wouldn’t know what they were supposed to do and where they were supposed to go. Put another way, the parents were fighting and the kids were frightened and confused.
Compounding this issue, in the confusion, speaking up and “listening” unsurprisingly collapsed, so that the vital information senior leaders needed to have to make decisions about where to take the business stopped flowing upwards.
The core of our work with this client was diagnostic: to hold up a mirror to what was going on. As family members, they were steeped in this culture of dysfunction, so whilst there was a high awareness that things weren’t working, there was no ability to separate themselves so as to understand why.
We helped them to see that perceptions and therefore positions had become entrenched, but that they weren’t seeing each other clearly - they were making assumptions of each other of destructive intent rather than positive intent; assuming scary motives that didn’t exist, and acting to protect themselves against these non-existent threats.
Once they came to understand what was going on and had begun to let go of the old assumptions that were keeping them paralysed and keeping them apart, we worked with them through one/one and group coaching over time to build new ways communicating focused on openness and curiosity rather than conflict and defence. We helped them evolve collaborative decision-making practices including creating and holding ‘thinking spaces’, and building resoluteness and determination through such practices as ‘disagree and commit’.
Team mates reported an increased sense of clarity and decisiveness, and a belief that better decisions were being made, along with materially improved delivery against objectives in terms of both speed and quality.